Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) was quick to seize on good news from market analytics firm International Data Corp.'s (IDC) survey of international phone sales. While the report unsurprisingly showed Android to be the king of virtually every region, the report showed that in some nations Windows Phones are outselling Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone.

But before Apple fans explode with indignation, yes there is a catch. Windows Phone outsold the iPhone in a smattering of emerging markets, where the high price of Apple's trendy phone is probably a barrier to sales success. In total Windows Phone led the iPhone in Argentina, India, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, and "rest of central and eastern Europe".

The success in India is a pretty big deal because that's going to be a huge smartphone market. But other regions like Ukraine, South Africa, and "rest of... Europe" (smaller countries) are all markets of 100,000 or less smartphone units annually.

The Lumia 520 [Image Source: Nokia]

The arrival of low-end Windows Phone devices -- namely Nokia Oyj.'s (HEX:NOK1V) Lumia 520/620 -- has certainly boosted Windows Phone. Much like Android, Microsoft and its third-party hardware partners appear to be starting their assault on the iPhone at the low-end. While today's flagship Android phones put the iPhone's hardware to shame, the earliest Androids were largely budget devices.

It remains to be seen, though, whether Windows Phone can duplicate Android's successful creep into the high-end of the market. Microsoft is betting big on the Windows Phone Blue refresh, which will likely be the next major platform refresh. That update is expected to land sometime in the October/November window. The good news for Windows Phone 8 device owners is that Microsoft reportedly will be supporting current generation devices in the upgrade this time around.

Mobile applications don't really use multithreading. PC applications outside of video encoders still don't use quad cores or hyperthreading. This is why an i5 rig strictly for gaming is just as good or better than an i7 that costs $100 more.

Most PC games will barely use two cores, most of it leans on the GPU. Crysis 3, a very new game, is the first that really benefits from quad core. Others like Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider don't.

Desktop PCs with windowed UIs obviously benefit from multitasking, ie - running a video encoder, web browser with video, word processor, all at once in separate windows. The benefit for mobile applications is questionable given that mobile apps are fullscreen rather than windowed, and suspending to RAM or backgrounding (audio streaming, etc) is something that dual-core is more than capable of handling.

Efficiency and a good GPU are much more important. This is why iOS and WP manage smoothness and performance with "less" hardware and greater battery life. Ditto tighter integration between the hardware and the OS. A dual-core 1ghz A6 or A6X runs circles around a 1.5ghz+ quad-core SoC in practical application performance, all with more battery life. Same as the old days when WP7 on the technically slower Snapdragon was much quicker and more responsive than Android on the faster Hummingbird.

quote: In the end you just end up with slightly more power drain for most users.

Pretty much. We're still at a point where greater efficiency out of one or two cores yields the most benefits for mobile, kind of like where we were with desktops before 2009 when Intel introduced Turbo Boost, and that was a system to disable unused cores so that one or two cores got more power since that's what single brute force apps benefit from.

quote: Most PC games will barely use two cores, most of it leans on the GPU. Crysis 3, a very new game, is the first that really benefits from quad core. Others like Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider don't.

Most can play fine on a speedy dual core, but they still see performance improvements when you move to a quaddy.

With that said, I still see allot of people kicking around an old Core 2 Quad, albeit heavily overclocked as they seem to be able to handle the more heavily threaded games just fine, which is in stark contrast to the old Core 2 Duo's which will scream "I'm a teapot!" in some titles.

Hear, hear!I'm also on a 2500k, which, although unlocked, I don't feel the need to overclock. I don't do video encoding or 3D modelling either. I do use a VM quite often. It gets its own 2 cores and both host and guest are happy.

Same here. Built the rig almost a year ago. I get a stable overclock of 4.5GHz in a well ventilated Cooler Master HAF932 case. Great little cpu. My first Intel build. I also thought that the i7 was overkill for what I needed.

quote: I can list some off the top of my head that use more than 2 cores.

Multi-core or multi-CPU performance scales better depending on how granular the load is. For example a database will see fairly linear scaling as more CPUs are added since databases are responding to queries and can spread that load over any number of cores. More importantly, the result of the calculation can be returned directly without having to recombine it with the main thread and perform additional calculations.

A game is processor-intensive with a load that cannot efficiently be spread around since a lot of the calculations are intertwined with each other and cannot be split apart, processed independently and returned as they are completed. Even if the load is split, it still needs to be recombined and it still needs to wait on the main thread. This adds processing overhead, increases memory usage and adds a thick layer of complexity to the code among other things.

So even if the game supports multiple cores the performance is going to reflect high diminishing returns with that type of load. With games you'll see better results with a single fast core than you will with multiple slower cores.

quote: A game is processor-intensive with a load that cannot efficiently be spread around since a lot of the calculations are intertwined with each other and cannot be split apart, processed independently and returned as they are completed. Even if the load is split, it still needs to be recombined and it still needs to wait on the main thread. This adds processing overhead, increases memory usage and adds a thick layer of complexity to the code among other things.

Yup, all this. There are still serious diminishing returns with more than two cores. The whole reason quad cores finally made sense with the i-series CPUs is because they could disable unused cores while increasing the clock frequency on one or two. High performance single-thread applications like games could finally benefit, whereas before with a Core Quad you'd be stuck with a slower clocked CPU and extra cores doing little or nothing.

Windows phones and Apple phones have smoother interfaces because of a small range of hardware. It is very easy to tune your UI,software, drivers, applications, etc with you only have a few CPU, GPU, and screen resolution combinations to worry about. With android you have hundreds even if you exclude android 1.5 and before.

If you have been following the news on this site for the past 12 months you should have known this.

Actually its more then that. The UI has a higher priority in the API level in iOS and Win8. Android will never be as smooth because it doesn't have 1st priority. It's a small sacrifice they made to make it more customizable. But having said that I wish they ran the UI as smooth because iOS and Win8 are like butter.

I specifically mentioned efficiency as another reason why. I assumed at the late time I made the post that I was talking about tighter integration between the OS and the hardware, but I should have been more clear since IPC can also be inferred.

I specifically mentioned efficiency as another reason why. I thought at the late time I made the post that I was clearly talking about tighter integration between the OS and the hardware, but I should have been more specific since IPC can also be inferred.

quote: Windows phones and Apple phones have smoother interfaces because of a small range of hardware. It is very easy to tune your UI,software, drivers, applications, etc with you only have a few CPU, GPU, and screen resolution combinations to worry about. With android you have hundreds even if you exclude android 1.5 and before.

Just as it is with the desktop version of Windows vs Linux, windows is the far superior desktop OS by a large margin. The X Window system can be dressed up with KDE or Gnome but it cannot match the smoothness and fluidity of Windows. With windows you do not need to mask an underlying turd of an OS with UI enhancements because it is a great OS all in all.

The very same UI traits are prevalent in the phone versions of the respective OSes. Windows Phone is the smoothest and most responsive OS you can put on a phone. It is superior to IOS and makes Android look like some kid's C64 science project.

So yeah, android is a steaming heap of dung that lets you apply layers of "custom UI" crap on top as if that transforms it into something viable... The fact of the matter is that if you want a usable, responsive and efficient UI for your smartphone Windows Phone is really the only choice on the market right now.

The options boil down to having Windows Phone and gaining an efficient and easy to use phone vs android, which attempts to mask its shortcomings by allowing the dimwitted masses express their "individuality" by customizing it with the same stuff everyone else has. Oh and there's IOS...but that's just like a slightly more polished version of android.

What a load of crap. There's so much hyperbole and red herrings here, even I don't have the patience to call them out.

Your personal preference doesn't make something absolute fact. Wake up! Even Blackberry has more users and makes more money than Windows phone, and that's after a 4 year nosedive. Why do you think that is? If Windows Phone was THAT good, this wouldn't even be possible.

quote: Windows Phone is the smoothest and most responsive OS you can put on a phone.

Can you prove this? Anyway the argument is now moot with Android going to Jelly Bean. Sorry, no 'smoothness' advantage (if there even was one).

Oh and if you even think about retorting with "fragmentation", guess what? Jelly Bean alone has more market share than Windows Phone anyway.

Just enjoy your OS without resorting to garbage like "Android is a steaming heap of dung" and we'll be okay. That crap doesn't belong here.

quote: Your personal preference doesn't make something absolute fact. Wake up! Even Blackberry has more users and makes more money than Windows phone, and that's after a 4 year nosedive. Why do you think that is? If Windows Phone was THAT good, this wouldn't even be possible.

Bieber earns millions from his music. Does that mean his music is "the best"? Perhaps if you're a tween. Mainstream success is not a metric of how good something is, nor is a lack of mainstream adoption proof that something is bad.

The iphone has enjoyed a firm grip on the smartphone market for a long time, with android filling in a sizable portion as well. Windows Phone is a relative newcomer and it's gaining ground.

quote: Can you prove this? Anyway the argument is now moot with Android going to Jelly Bean. Sorry, no 'smoothness' advantage (if there even was one).

Oh yeah, compare the phones side by side and there's no comparison. Windows Phone is by far the smoothest and most fluid UI. Are you in denial about the infamous android lag? Denying it doesn't make it go away.

quote: Oh and if you even think about retorting with "fragmentation", guess what? Jelly Bean alone has more market share than Windows Phone anyway.

Remember when N-SYNC had a lot of market share? Yeah...neither do I. Things change and it's time to get a windows phone and stop thinking you're "leet" because android is derived from linux.

quote: Just enjoy your OS without resorting to garbage like "Android is a steaming heap of dung" and we'll be okay. That crap doesn't belong here.

Oh but it is and always has been. The primary (only?) reason it took off is because of a massive push from Google AND because it was the only alternative to IOS at that time.

People who wanted an iphone but couldn't afford it chose an android phone, as did people who thought they are "cool" because they chose an inferior system over one that is not simply because it was less popular at the time.

The kind of crap that doesn't belong here is fanboism...overstating the quality of a product simply because it's what you use or like. If Android or IOS was better than Windows Phone I'd have gone with either of them instead.

Windows Phone just is the best smartphone OS available today hands down, unless your metric is how many other people are currently using it or how many layers of crap you can pile on top of the basic UI.

It certainly has the best mobile UI of any OS out there. Live tiles, intelligent grouping of contact info, it really brings a lot of genius and practical innovations to the smartphone UI. If it had the app library and developer support of iOS it would be the mobile OS to rule them all.

As badly as MS has fumbled bringing that same UI to desktops (they really should segment a windowed OS and one that is fullscreen), they succeeded making the most innovative and practical interface for smartphones.

Yes but the problem is, people just don't like "live tiles". They don't like them on Windows Phone, and they damn sure don't like them on Windows 8 RT or otherwise.

Look the trial period is over. Windows Phone has been around a long time now. For comparison, at this point on the market Android had nearly a 40% market share. You can only make excuses for so long before you acknowledge Windows Phone might not be the mecca you think it is, and it doesn't 'jive' with consumers.

When I want an app to display live info, I have a widget for that. You know Widgets, the concept MS blatantly stole and called "live tiles"? I don't want my entire UI to be big square widgets though, that's absurd.

I know we're supposed to look at the UI and go "oohh wow, that's cool". Sorry, but it's a disjointed mess! Those colors, those multi-sized tiles, the complete lack of any hierarchical structure or organization. You have to be kidding me.

Also the notification system, well, I should say LACK OF. Seriously this is a big deal to me, I'm a huge fan of Android's notification system and how intuitive and powerful it is. Even iOS has a more robust system for this than Windows Phone. There’s no option to see a silent pop-up, and there’s no notification center which also means you don’t have a single place to glance at incoming e-mails, text messages and social network messages. If you want to see what’s happening, your only option is to go to the home screen and thumb through a bunch of Live Tiles. Wtf??

quote: they succeeded making the most innovative and practical interface for smartphones.

quote: Yes but the problem is, people just don't like "live tiles". They don't like them on Windows Phone, and they damn sure don't like them on Windows 8 RT or otherwise.

I like them AND prefer them on my phone.

quote: Windows Phone has been around a long time now. For comparison, at this point on the market Android had nearly a 40% market share. You can only make excuses for so long before you acknowledge Windows Phone might not be the mecca you think it is, and it doesn't 'jive' with consumers.

Windows Phone has been around for roughly 2 years. Its public release was in Nov 2010, and it debuted into a market that was effectively locked down by contract deals for phones that didn't have an Apple on them to include Android. As these contracts expire and more Windows Phone options become available, it is likely that more people will gravitate toward it because it is such a well-designed mobile OS.

quote: When I want an app to display live info, I have a widget for that. You know Widgets, the concept MS blatantly stole and called "live tiles"? I don't want my entire UI to be big square widgets though, that's absurd.

Stole? More like improved upon. I'm less concerned with how my UI looks as I am with how it works and how quickly I can access features of my phone and how easily I can get to the information I want. Live tiles can show me quite a bit of info at a glance, and a single tap lets me get more info if I need it. The look is clean and uncluttered...makes more sense to have tiles on a touchscreen than it does to have small icons.

quote: Sorry, but it's a disjointed mess! Those colors, those multi-sized tiles, the complete lack of any hierarchical structure or organization. You have to be kidding me.

Disjointed? Not even close. It's a very minimalistic design that works. Why would you want a hierarchical structure on a phone? That means you'd have to tap through a series of clutter to get to what you want. Windows phone lets you make any app a tile on the home screen so you can QUICKLY access whatever you want with a single tap. What next? Gonna whine about the lack of a command prompt?

quote: Also the notification system, well, I should say LACK OF. Seriously this is a big deal to me, I'm a huge fan of Android's notification system and how intuitive and powerful it is. Even iOS has a more robust system for this than Windows Phone. There’s no option to see a silent pop-up, and there’s no notification center which also means you don’t have a single place to glance at incoming e-mails, text messages and social network messages. If you want to see what’s happening, your only option is to go to the home screen and thumb through a bunch of Live Tiles. Wtf??

This is really showing that you have never used a Windows Phone. You can choose a tile to act as a notifier for WHATEVER you want. I have my SMS, and two email accounts set up as live tiles. I can glance at the screen to see if I have any messages and if I do I can read them with two taps.

Social network integration is second-to-none with Windows Phone. This is one area where it assuredly beats out IOS and Android by a large margin.

You're basically claiming that because Windows Phone does not need the crutches and bandaids Android does to make information available, that it somehow makes it "inferior".

The ease and efficiency of how information is presented in Windows Phone is the whole point behind me saying that it is the best smartphone OS currently available. It doesn't get in the way of you using your phone. The points you've raised are mostly coming from ignorance or an unreasonable clinginess to an outdated paradigm.

quote: This is really showing that you have never used a Windows Phone. You can choose a tile to act as a notifier for WHATEVER you want. I have my SMS, and two email accounts set up as live tiles. I can glance at the screen to see if I have any messages and if I do I can read them with two taps.

???? WOW amazing.

Let me get this straight, to see notifications I have to first unlock my phone. Then view a dedicated notification tile to view them?

With Android my phone has a dedicated LED light that tells me I have notifications without me even having to turn on the screen to know they are there. This is especially useful for occasions where I need my phone to be silent. Or especially if I was a deaf person. From there I can view my notices from the unlock screen, without even having to unlock the phone. Now this is important, with Jelly Bean I can now view the entire contents of the notification, even the email sender, subject, and message, and my phone is still locked.

Also with Android you have dedicated screen space for notifications, making for a more consistent experience than WP or iOS. Seriously I don't know anyone who doesn't at least concede that Android has always lead the industry with it's pull-down notification system, LED alerts, and lock screen integration.

Sorry but if I don't have WP experience, you clearly don't have Android experience. The way Android handles notifications is far superior, second to none. This isn't an opinion, but a quantified fact. And please don't pull a fanboi and call the notification lamp LED a "gimmick", that's loser talk. Or claim you love unlocking your phone every time just to view notices.

quote: As these contracts expire and more Windows Phone options become available, it is likely that more people will gravitate toward it because it is such a well-designed mobile OS.

Well that time is past, because of Microsoft's apathy toward their own products, the absolute worst thing has happened to Windows Phone. A resurgent and surprisingly well polished Blackberry. Their market share is still increasing over WP, and the Z10 is selling faster than any Windows Phone ever has.

Microsoft had a chance, a real chance, to make headway in this market. But they fumbled it and maybe everyone but you knows this.

quote: Oh yeah, compare the phones side by side and there's no comparison. Windows Phone is by far the smoothest and most fluid UI. Are you in denial about the infamous android lag? Denying it doesn't make it go away.

quote: Oh yeah, compare the phones side by side and there's no comparison. Windows Phone is by far the smoothest and most fluid UI. Are you in denial about the infamous android lag? Denying it doesn't make it go away.

Well like most Android haters, your talking points are about two years behind the times. Jelly Bean is at least as smooth if not smoother than Windows Phone. Sorry.

quote: Oh but it is and always has been. The primary (only?) reason it took off is because of a massive push from Google AND because it was the only alternative to IOS at that time.

lmao, okay well, happy trolling. I'm out, this is too much. This is supposed to be a tech forum, not Xbox Live chat.

quote: The options boil down to having Windows Phone and gaining an efficient and easy to use phone vs android, which attempts to mask its shortcomings by allowing the dimwitted masses express their "individuality" by customizing it with the same stuff everyone else has. Oh and there's IOS...but that's just like a slightly more polished version of android.

Everything was spot on until this last point. iOS shares many of the same advantages WP8 does in terms of responsiveness and performance due to a better tuned OS and better optimization to the hardware. iOS, while a bit stale in the UI, is as stable and smooth as they come. I'd put iOS and WP on the same level there, with the main differences being UI and app libraries. A "slightly more polished version of Android" is stretching credibility to make a point based on how much smoother, more polished, and more stable iOS is compared to JB.

My ideal mobile OS would be something with WP8's UI features and iOS's third party support, best of both worlds.

While that has been true up until now, I think that will change very quickly next year as games are released for next gen consoles. It is one thing to port a game from Cell or PPC tech to a duel or quad core x86 CPU because essentially everything needs to be rewritten anyways... but if consoles are going to natively have 8+ x86 cores (and the nextbox running win8 for the OS) then it would be much cheaper for game developers to make much more direct ports without rewriting half of the game engine to run on less cores.

To top that all off, next gen consoles run AMD CPUs, which means that even though I bought an i7 (for video editing, so it's not a waste) then games will probably still only see my CPU as a quad core. That could mean that if I want to run next gen games full tilt then I will probably need some future 8 core (or AMD quad module) chip, rather than being able to rely on my i7 for ever and ever.